The taxpayer was reassessed for its 2007 and 2008 taxation years, appealed to the Tax Court and then was further reassessed based on documents which it had provided on discovery.
The further reassessments had breached the rule in Juman v. Soucette, 2008 SCC 8, para. 4 that "both documentary and oral information obtained on discovery…is subject to the implied undertaking [that] it is not to be used by the other parties, except for the purpose of that litigation, unless and until the scope of the undertaking is varied by court order," as the further reassessments "gave rise to new litigation" (para. 44). To the extent that there was a public interest in assessing the taxpayer with the best available information, such arguments should have gone into an application for judicial leave, rather than a unilateral decision by the Minister (52-53).
D'Arcy J did not vacate the further reassessments as it was not clear that they had been based only on the discovered documents. He instead ordered that the discovered documents could not be used in any other proceeding, after previously noting (at para. 56) that such leave should only be granted "in exceptional circumstances."